netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: fix checking boundary of valid vlan id

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Jan 2013 09:00:14 +1030
From:	Glen Turner <gdt@....id.au>
To:	Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, akong@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix checking boundary of valid vlan id


On 01/01/2013, at 3:42 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:

> Glen Turner <gdt@....id.au> writes:
> 
>> It may be a valid VLAN ID, or it may not. The meaning of FFF is
>> reserved for vendor use, which doesn't preclude a vendor using it as a
>> (non-interoperable) VLAN identifier. Many vendor's products treat 4096
>> as they do any other VID.
> 
> I may be missing something vital, but 4096 is 0x1000 not 0xFFF? 4095 is
> reserved and 0 means "treat as if the packet was untagged". 4096 is
> impossible, there are only 12 bit and the encoding is AFAIK bog standard
> binary.

Yep, I've failed at hex math. 0xfff = 4095 is the maximal VID value, and is the one reserved for vendor use.
Which means that the patch checking values 1 to 4095 is correct.

My apologies,
glen--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html